Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

Notes on the Global 1940 2nd rules, mainly highlights of the most important rules as they appear in rulebooks along with some additional comments and explanations and some helpful tables:
Global 1940 2nd - Setup Charts:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ccw97pjjrx45768/Setup Charts for A%26A G40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Global 1940 2nd - Basic Rules Guide:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m83pt7a1o2f2iru/Important Notes for A%26A G40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Some pages as a sample of these Notes below:

f70a78ac-d08c-42a6-8cd0-dbd83066b09e-image.png

b8edf848-6156-4614-8594-8f3c30c1c544-image.png

1e065c39-8da7-4238-882b-2ba330f27f8c-image.png

See also the posts for Europe and Pacific 1940 SE versions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1622770
and
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1623789

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

17, the bid follows classic bid. you can go 20-13… jeez

STOP MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED. HE ASK SIMPLE QUESTION AND YOU MOCK HIM. THEN WONDER WHY FORUM HAS ONLY THE SAME PEOPLE.

But yeah I’d house rule against japan cheese and give axis a bid. It’s simple, you move in allies sz territories you declare war. thada!

The few games I campaigned through China I used the jap aa gun to try and kill that ftr.  I remember it worked at least once.  a small stack against a chinese attack that is light on arty means China will have to bring the ftr to have the punch to clear the zone.  This can work great if you are cutting the Burma road every round.

I also did air raid it the first game I played Japan too.  I just don’t think that ftr is really worth gunning for.  Now if it could leave China or attack the sz’s on the coast it would be dead meat.

I’d rather kill that ftr when its attacking than having to go in and dig it out when its rolling 4’s.

Thanks guys. Fast and accurate answers. This helps a lot.

Cheers! :-)

It could facilitate blind games, which are loads of fun but currently very tedious and time-consuming.  (I’ve played one on AAR)

blind games=basically you can’t see the units in enemy territory, except perhaps in the ones adjacent to your own.  for now it takes 2 separate boards and one non-player person willing to be the moderator to keep the boards synced.

We both had prior family engagements, thought I mentioned that in our last email, and Germany was a paper tiger after the sealion bid and all the failed tech rolls. Yes you were pushing India, and I probably would have lost it, but the us fleet was moving and ready to rumble, not to mention ANZAC actually had a BB and a fully loaded AC fleet ready to move! UK had sealed up Africa and Germany had a one layer offensive into Russia (no backup inf on the way). By the way you slipped the +10 IPC for Japan rule into the original Alpha setup when we played. That is part of the improved Alpha i think, Jim and I had never played with the Alpha setup before that so we never noticed.

I still think it would have been close. But I distinctly remembering you folding during the auction due to time after we decided to call it (9 hours of game-play) but I may be wrong.

Also I will send you some links concerning the tactical game I mentioned that we should demo next year at Ellis Con. I have made Terrain and stuff for it over the past few weeks. Its Axis & Allies on steroids.